Reopen a comment thread

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint 'as its owner,' implying an ownership/permission requirement, but says nothing about what happens to thread state or notifications - modest added value over the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, efficiently front-loaded sentence with the action ('Opens... again') leading and the ownership constraint trailing. No waste, though it is quite terse for a mutation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The two required parameters are fully documented in-schema. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit permission or side-effect detail, which the 'as its owner' phrase partially addresses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (site, thread) are documented in-schema with their source tools (list_sites, list_comments). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Opens... again') and resource ('a resolved comment thread on a site'), making the inverse relationship to resolve_comment clear. It distinguishes itself well from reply_comment and resolve_comment without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'a resolved comment thread' - the agent can infer this applies only to threads that are currently resolved. However, no alternatives are named and no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., versus reply_comment or resolve_comment) is given, leaving the routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.